The Cappadocians and Augustine on the Trinity

[Alexander_Roman]

One issue that arises here is the emphasis on St Maximos in the Trinitarian discussions between East and West.

Whatever he meant or said about the differences between the Latin West and the East - he certainly was not a theological authority on the matter - or any matter.

Also, to want to portray St Maximos in an overly ecumenical way, in modern terms, would be wrong and that is certainly not what he was about.

St Maximos was about the uncompromising truth first and last. However irenical he appeared with respect to Western Triadology, he is known for his determination to oppose the entire Christian world when he believed it fell into heresy - Rome and all the Eastern patriarchs included, not to mention the punishment that would be meted out to him by the Emperor.

So the emphasis on what St Maximos, a humble monk, said on the matter of Triadology simply does not advance the discussion too far at all.

And the more the Western position is elucidated, the less attractive it becomes for the East.

As Fr. Meyendorff once wrote, if unity is what is the desired goal, then, at Florence especially, both sides could have agreed to the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque and then agreed on the formula “From the Father through the Son” - period and be done with it.

Alex

 

[Cavaradossi]

One issue that arises here is the emphasis on St Maximos in the Trinitarian discussions between East and West.

Whatever he meant or said about the differences between the Latin West and the East - he certainly was not a theological authority on the matter - or any matter.

Also, to want to portray St Maximos in an overly ecumenical way, in modern terms, would be wrong and that is certainly not what he was about.

St Maximos was about the uncompromising truth first and last. However irenical he appeared with respect to Western Triadology, he is known for his determination to oppose the entire Christian world when he believed it fell into heresy - Rome and all the Eastern patriarchs included, not to mention the punishment that would be meted out to him by the Emperor.

So the emphasis on what St Maximos, a humble monk, said on the matter of Triadology simply does not advance the discussion too far at all.

**And the more the Western position is elucidated, the less attractive it becomes for the East.

As Fr. Meyendorff once wrote, if unity is what is the desired goal, then, at Florence especially, both sides could have agreed to the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque and then agreed on the formula “From the Father through the Son” - period and be done with it.**

Alex

I agree, especially with the bolded statements.

 

[Ghosty]

The filioque, as a theology, is not going away even if its removed from the Latin Creed. It is simply too well grounded Patristically to toss out. This isn’t a matter of pride, but of Tradition. As for “through the Son”, the filioque is the proper way to say it in Latin, not “per Filio”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Cavaradossi]

The filioque, as a theology, is not going away even if its removed from the Latin Creed. It is simply too well grounded Patristically to toss out. This isn’t a matter of pride, but of Tradition. As for “through the Son”, the filioque is the proper way to say it in Latin, not “per Filio”.

Peace and God bless!

But what about the even older tradition of reciting the creed saying, “Qui ex Patre procedit…,” why was that tradition thrown out in favor of modifying the Creed which was common to both the Latins and the Greeks? Surely it can remain a teaching without having to remain in the Creed.

 

[RyanBlack]

But what about the even older tradition of reciting the creed saying, “Qui ex Patre procedit…,” why was that tradition thrown out in favor of modifying the Creed which was common to both the Latins and the Greeks? Surely it can remain a teaching without having to remain in the Creed.

The filioque was added to the Creed in Spain to combat the ongoing Arian heresy and to stress the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Ghosty]

But what about the even older tradition of reciting the creed saying, “Qui ex Patre procedit…,” why was that tradition thrown out in favor of modifying the Creed which was common to both the Latins and the Greeks? Surely it can remain a teaching without having to remain in the Creed.

The Creed was modified because there was a rule requiring the Creed to be absolutely identical between traditions. The Latin and Greek Creeds are slightly different even without the filioque. For a time Rome insisted on leaving the filioque out, but the other Western traditions included it and eventually Rome went along with the change as well.

As for retaining the teaching while going back to the original Latin Creed, that’s already been done in an official capacity, such as in the encyclical Dominus Iesus, but no agreement has been made about the Liturgical Creed. Part of the problem is that the high-level discussions have focused primarily on the orthodoxy of the filioque, not its inclusion in the Creed per se. The Latin Church has always been able to defend the orthodoxy of the filioque quite well, and that’s been that. Were the Orthodox to simply challenge the filioque’s inclusion, and not its orthodoxy, I think it’s quite possible that the filioque could be removed, but so far the Orthodox continue to wrongly challenge the orthodoxy of the teaching.

Personally, I could care less about the retention of the filioque. The Latins and Greeks have never recited an identical Creed, so this one term doesn’t bother me since it’s perfectly orthodox, and attested to quite well by our own Eastern Fathers. If the Latins want to remove it as a good-will gesture, all the better, but I would not want them to do it until the Orthodox stop insisting that the filioque is heretical, because changing the wording without changing the teaching would just hide the wound, not heal it, and would not bring us any closer to reunion or understanding.

Let me ask you, Cavaradossi, are you comfortable with the full orthodoxy of the filioque teaching?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Madaglan]

I’ve since seen significant criticism of the author who used this interpretation of the Cappadocians.

John Zizoulas in his propogation of his own social trinitarianism misread the Cappadocians.

Apparently in Gregory of Nyssa’s Ad Grecos, he uses prosopon 2:1 to hypostasis and has been slammed by patristic scholars from Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox patristic scholars.

He is currently under investigation by the Orthodox church.

One of my friends told me that he misreads Palamas, but I was not aware of the heavy criticism he has received for his use of prosopon. I just purchased one of his books and look forward to reading it. Well-known Orthodox scholars praise him on the back cover.

Do you know under which Orthodox Church is he under investigation?

 

[The_Old_Medic]

In fact, sometimes an “outsider” can and does, understand a concept and writings better than those that use it every day. Sometimes, the very fact that they are from OUTSIDE, makes them research , and come to a more complete understanding.

The simple fact of the matter is that both the Orthodox and the Roman Churches allowed pride, anger and virtually complete disdain for each other lead to a schism.

In the present day, it is STILL pride that prevents any form of reconciliation. The Orthodox say, “It has to be 100% OUR way, there can be no compromise whatsoever”.

The Roman side says, “The Pope is infallible, and we refuse to even consider anything else”.

And Satan smiles, because BOTH sides are doing HIS work, and not the work of God.

 

[Vico]

The bigger concern for the Orthodox is not really St. Photios’ objections to the Filioque, as I pointed out earlier, but whether or not causation becomes a property of the Son. For example look at the quotation from St. Augustine that you provided:

St. Augustine’s understanding of the Filioque is that the Father retains his unique property as the cause of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds prinicpally from the Father, and because of their shared communion eternally proceeds (or more technically progresses) from the Father and the Son. This is in line with St. Maximos the Confessor’s understanding that the Father is cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that, because of their shared essence, the Holy Spirit progresses from the Father through the Son. Problematically, the quotes from Florence and Pope Gregory XIII seem have a different understanding:

The idea that all that the Father has belongs to the Son, except for Fatherhood is simply too vague. It makes no attempt at all to uphold the unique property of the Father which is causality. If there is no disclaimer that the procession of the Holy Spirit works in such a manner that the causality of the person of the Holy Spirit is not shared between the Father and the Son, but belongs only to the Father, then the above statements cannot really be considered correct from the Orthodox point of view.

The dogma was defined at Lyons II, with elaboration that the Father is the one source: “… proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but from one principle.”

As St. Thomas wrote, principaliter, means the Holy Spirit proceeds “beginningly,” or to take his first origin from the Father and his second origin from the Son.

And today we have the document from the Pontifical Council proclaiming that the meaning of the word principally is the sense (above) intended where it says that "the Western tradition, following St. Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father “principaliter, that is, as principle (à titre de principe).”

 

[Swiss_Guy]

sorry for “butting in”, but how do the Cappadocians and Augustine differ on the Trinity?
Is it about the procession of the HS?

 

[Vico]

sorry for “butting in”, but how do the Cappadocians and Augustine differ on the Trinity?
Is it about the procession of the HS?

Cappadocian: origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone (ekporeusiV) as principle of the whole Trinity. (e.g., St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Cyril)

Augustine: the procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Creed was modified because there was a rule requiring the Creed to be absolutely identical between traditions. The Latin and Greek Creeds are slightly different even without the filioque. For a time Rome insisted on leaving the filioque out, but the other Western traditions included it and eventually Rome went along with the change as well.

As for retaining the teaching while going back to the original Latin Creed, that’s already been done in an official capacity, such as in the encyclical Dominus Iesus, but no agreement has been made about the Liturgical Creed. Part of the problem is that the high-level discussions have focused primarily on the orthodoxy of the filioque, not its inclusion in the Creed per se. The Latin Church has always been able to defend the orthodoxy of the filioque quite well, and that’s been that. Were the Orthodox to simply challenge the filioque’s inclusion, and not its orthodoxy, I think it’s quite possible that the filioque could be removed, but so far the Orthodox continue to wrongly challenge the orthodoxy of the teaching.

Personally, I could care less about the retention of the filioque. The Latins and Greeks have never recited an identical Creed, so this one term doesn’t bother me since it’s perfectly orthodox, and attested to quite well by our own Eastern Fathers. If the Latins want to remove it as a good-will gesture, all the better, but I would not want them to do it until the Orthodox stop insisting that the filioque is heretical, because changing the wording without changing the teaching would just hide the wound, not heal it, and would not bring us any closer to reunion or understanding.

Let me ask you, Cavaradossi, are you comfortable with the full orthodoxy of the filioque teaching?

Peace and God bless!

I am comfortable with the filioque, so long as it preserves the Father as the sole principle and cause of the Holy Spirit, as is held by the Orthodox Church. I have some discomfort with the filioque in the Creed because it is easy to misinterpret. The Creed without the filioque is much less ambiguous in establishing the Father as the cause and principle of the Trinity. This is why I’m comfortable with it as a teaching, but not really comfortable with it in the creed: it is simply too easy to misinterpret “proceeds from the Father and the Son” so as to create some sort of second principle or cause out of the Son (I know that the RCC does not teach a double procession, by the way, but it is easy to misinterpret that statement if it is not qualified).

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I am comfortable with the filioque, so long as it preserves the Father as the sole principle and cause of the Holy Spirit, as is held by the Orthodox Church. I have some discomfort with the filioque in the Creed because it is easy to misinterpret. The Creed without the filioque is much less ambiguous in establishing the Father as the cause and principle of the Trinity. This is why I’m comfortable with it as a teaching, but not really comfortable with it in the creed: it is simply too easy to misinterpret “proceeds from the Father and the Son” so as to create some sort of second principle or cause out of the Son (I know that the RCC does not teach a double procession, by the way, but it is easy to misinterpret that statement if it is not qualified).

As Rome is big on doing things the ancient way, it should return to the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque.

Any other differences here and there do not affect the faith or is open to misunderstanding the way the Filioque is.

As Fr. Meyendorff once said, if unity is what was the desired goal at Florence, both sides could have agreed to the original Creed without the Filioque and then could have agreed to the formula “From the Father through the Son.”

Don’t let this get around, but it seems that Rome has a penchant for making confusing statements which it then has to explain in several pages or volumes of theological explanation.

Rome’s additional penchant for scholastic “overkill” in theological development tends to be heavily weighted toward a type of rationalism. It is better to bow before a mystery than to try and make feeble attempts at understanding it.

Alex

 

[Ghosty]

I am comfortable with the filioque, so long as it preserves the Father as the sole principle and cause of the Holy Spirit, as is held by the Orthodox Church. I have some discomfort with the filioque in the Creed because it is easy to misinterpret. The Creed without the filioque is much less ambiguous in establishing the Father as the cause and principle of the Trinity. This is why I’m comfortable with it as a teaching, but not really comfortable with it in the creed: it is simply too easy to misinterpret “proceeds from the Father and the Son” so as to create some sort of second principle or cause out of the Son (I know that the RCC does not teach a double procession, by the way, but it is easy to misinterpret that statement if it is not qualified).

If yours becomes/is the main view of the Orthodox, I think it is quite likely that such a change in the Latin Liturgical Creed would be possible, even probable. I think Rome’s main concern has been protecting the theology, not specifically its inclusion in the Creed.

I myself recite the Creed without the filioque, even when I’m visiting a Roman parish, even though I agree with the teaching. I agree that its removal is a great ecumenical move, so long as the teaching itself is preserved. My reason for defending the teaching is based purely on the Patristic attestation of it; I truly believe that “from the Father alone” is a novelty that didn’t arise until the time of Photius.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Alexander Roman:

As Fr. Meyendorff once said, if unity is what was the desired goal at Florence, both sides could have agreed to the original Creed without the Filioque and then could have agreed to the formula “From the Father through the Son.”

I don’t know if this is true. Some Orthodox insist that the Son has no place in the substantial Spiration of the Spirit, and insist that “through” refers either only to the created world, or to some kind of “showing forth” of the Holy Spirit. That is definitely not the filioque, and it’s not the teaching of the Fathers on the subject.

Unless there is agreement on what the filioque means there can’t be reunion, because Rome will always insist, rightly IMO, that “through the Son” must refer to the substantial origin of the Holy Spirit.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alexander Roman:I don’t know if this is true. Some Orthodox insist that the Son has no place in the substantial Spiration of the Spirit, and insist that “through” refers either only to the created world, or to some kind of “showing forth” of the Holy Spirit. That is definitely not the filioque, and it’s not the teaching of the Fathers on the subject.

Unless there is agreement on what the filioque means there can’t be reunion, because Rome will always insist, rightly IMO, that “through the Son” must refer to the substantial origin of the Holy Spirit.

Peace and God bless!

The substantial origin of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone “Active Spiration” and through the Son by way of “Passive Spiration.”

Anything beyond this is NOT the teaching of the Fathers.

Alex

 

[Ghosty]

The substantial origin of the Holy Spirit is from the Father alone “Active Spiration” and through the Son by way of “Passive Spiration.”

Anything beyond this is NOT the teaching of the Fathers.

Alex

I’m not sure where you’re coming from when you say the Son “Passively Spirates” the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that has the property of “passive Spiration”, because He is Spirated. “Passive Spiration”, used as a verb, is self-contradictory, and I’ve never seen it in any of the Fathers, East or West. I can’t really respond to this idea because I don’t know what you mean by it, and it doesn’t make sense on the face of it; one can no more “passively spirate” than one can “passively run”.

Yes, the substantial origin of the Holy Spirit is from the Father, through the Son, however, and the Father alone is the source of the Holy Spirit (as the Council of Florence stated). My point is that some Eastern Orthodox even deny this, saying that the substantial origin of the Holy Spirit is not at all through the Son. This is what Photius said, and what Mark of Ephesus argued at the Council of Florence, and he was thoroughly rebutted from both the Latin and Greek Fathers, and why he was the subject of some mocking by the Greek scholar Bessarion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I’m not sure where you’re coming from when you say the Son “Passively Spirates” the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that has the property of “passive Spiration”, because He is Spirated. “Passive Spiration”, used as a verb, is self-contradictory, and I’ve never seen it in any of the Fathers, East or West. I can’t really respond to this idea because I don’t know what you mean by it, and it doesn’t make sense on the face of it; one can no more “passively spirate” than one can “passively run”.

Yes, the substantial origin of the Holy Spirit is from the Father, through the Son, however, and the Father alone is the source of the Holy Spirit (as the Council of Florence stated). My point is that some Eastern Orthodox even deny this, saying that the substantial origin of the Holy Spirit is not at all through the Son. This is what Photius said, and what Mark of Ephesus argued at the Council of Florence, and he was thoroughly rebutted from both the Latin and Greek Fathers, and why he was the subject of some mocking by the Greek scholar Bessarion.

Peace and God bless!

I attended an RC lecture on this here at St Michael’s University some years ago and that is how the Jesuit Father presented it - the Spirit has His Origin in the Father alone and is spirated through the Son. I am not a theologian (I had strong opposition from my family to me entering the seminary to study for the priesthood - I’m today sorry I didn’t fight back), but this makes sense to me.

The Orthodox do not consider “through the Son” a dogma nor do they consider it necessary in any way (however one understands it) for a complete Triadology. It is sufficient to say that the Spirit’s spiration from the Father is distinct from the Son’s eternal begetting. Certainly, they are correct and all other teachings/speculations on the role of the Son in that Spiration can and should be left to the realm of theologoumena.

I believe now that the Orthodox Triadology is what has led to a vibrant liturgical and theological role for the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church - a role that seems to have lost its way in Western Catholicism for far too long.

Alex

 

[Ghosty]

I attended an RC lecture on this here at St Michael’s University some years ago and that is how the Jesuit Father presented it - the Spirit has His Origin in the Father alone and is spirated through the Son. I am not a theologian (I had strong opposition from my family to me entering the seminary to study for the priesthood - I’m today sorry I didn’t fight back), but this makes sense to me.

Yes, one can say “Spirated through the Son”, but that would still put the Son as an active Spirator, and the Holy Spirit as the “passive” one. I’ve just never heard that Son is a “Passive Spirator” (a contradiction in terms), and that terminology definitely wasn’t used by the Fathers. That’s what confused me about what you were saying.

The Orthodox do not consider “through the Son” a dogma nor do they consider it necessary in any way (however one understands it) for a complete Triadology. It is sufficient to say that the Spirit’s spiration from the Father is distinct from the Son’s eternal begetting. Certainly, they are correct and all other teachings/speculations on the role of the Son in that Spiration can and should be left to the realm of theologoumena.

I’ve seen many, many Orthodox, including Bishops, say that any substantial origin of the Holy Spirit “through the Son” is heretical. That view must be resolved for any kind of Reunion to happen. Obviously this view is not the only one held by Orthodox (as can be seen by the Union of Brest’s statement on the filioque), but it is a common one.

I believe now that the Orthodox Triadology is what has led to a vibrant liturgical and theological role for the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church - a role that seems to have lost its way in Western Catholicism for far too long.

Alex

I agree that the Holy Spirit’s role in the Byzantine Liturgical tradition is wonderful, and I prefer it to the Latin Liturgical tradition, but I don’t think it has anything to do with Triadology. There is certainly nothing about “from the Father alone” that gives the Holy Spirit more prevalence than “from the Father and the Son”, especially not Liturgically.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Some might say that Western Triadology with its emphasis on the Son in that way did indeed impact the role of the Holy Spirit in the West. I tend to agree with that perspective.

Passive Spiration is indeed a modern term and MIGHT mean (again, I don’t compare myself with you or any trained theologians) that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, although not as from an Origin, since His Origin is the Father alone.

The articles of the Union of Brest have no status as an Eastern Orthodox statement of faith, of course. At best, a number of the articles are ambiguous at best, especially when they refer to maintaining the “tradition of the Church.” This begs the question, “Which tradition?” and “of which Church?”

Again, theological expertise was not rampant among those who framed and signed the articles of Brest. Their aim was a much more modest one of achieving unity with Rome to resolve a number of issues, not all of which were all that spiritual . . .

Alex